A Queensland judge has ruled that a woman cannot serve on a jury because she is deaf.

The woman, who has not been named, was yesterday ruled out of sitting on a jury in the current criminal sittings of the Supreme and District Courts after requesting an AUSLAN interpreter.

In his decision, Justice James Douglas said Queensland legislation does not provide for an interpreter in the jury room, and allowing the woman to lip-read what other jurors said could put a fair trial at risk.

Criminal defence lawyer Jim Coburn said the decision was justified.

"It's not the case that its discrimination against hearing impaired people, it's a case whereby you're introducing a 13th person in effect to the jury room deliberations," Mr Coburn told the ABC's The World Today program.

"The interpreter which would be required is not a person who would be sworn in under the Jurors Act and its certainly not a case whereby that person would have to abide by any of the requirements of confidentiality as to what goes on in the jury rooms.

"So there's no provision for a de facto 13th juror to be included in the jury room process the way that the legislation currently is."

Mr Coburn said the jury system was founded on communication, and that makes it difficult for deaf people to participate fully in a jury process.

The Queensland Law Reform Commission reviewed jury selection processes in 2011, suggesting changes to ensure that people with a physical disability are dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

In a statement, Queensland Law Society president Ian Brown said while the society was supportive of enabling disabled people to participate on a jury, it also supports the judiciary's power to excuse any juror with special needs if appropriate supports cannot be provided.

Decision is discriminatory: Innes

Disability Discrimination Commissioner Graeme Innes said Queensland is not the only state where this problem has arisen.

"It's worse in New South Wales," he said.

"Probably a decade ago the Law Reform Commission recommended that the law be changed so that blind and deaf people could participate on juries and no government has got around to doing it," Mr Innes said.

He said the judge's decision flies in the face of evidence that deaf jurors often have a clearer understanding of court processes if they are provided with appropriate support.

"All of the research in the United States which has been done around this process indicates that people who are deaf and who use interpreters actually have a better understanding of the details of the trial than do hearing jurors.

"So in fact what excluding a person who is deaf from a jury does is provides us with a less effective jury but unfortunately these sorts of decisions are based on assumptions which minimise the capacity of and the opportunities of people with disabilities to contribute to society."